IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37815 of 2008(B)
1. M/S. ASMA RUBBER PRODUCTS (P) LTD/.,
... Petitioner
2. NISHA RAHIM, W/O. CYA RAHIM,
Vs
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEES BRANCH
... Respondent
2. C.Y.A RASHEED, AGED 53,
3. C.Y.A RAMLA MOHAMMED, AGED 48,
4. CYA RAUF, AGED 42,
5. CYA RAJINA BEEVI, AGED 39,
6. ASMATTINA RASHEED, AGED 25,
7. FATHIMA BEEVI RASHEED, AGED 22,
8. FATHIMA NASMIN MOHAMMED, AGED 24,
9. TARIQ MOHAMMED, AGED 22,
10. K.M. PHILIP, AGED 50,
11. V.A. KUNJUMON, AGED 43,
12. C.D. MATHAI, AGED 66,
13. P.R. SABU, AGED 43, S/O. RAGHAVAN,
14. JAHEEL RAUF, AGED 36,
15. A.M. AKBAR ALI, AGED 46,
16. CYA RAHIM, AGED 46,
17. CYA RAZACK, AGED 44, BISMI,
18. SASIDHARAN NAIR, SREEPADAM HOUSE,
19. SARASAMMA, W/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.ULLAS
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :20/08/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.37815 OF 2008 (B)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. to call for the records leading to the
issuance of Ext.P5 order and set aside the
same and dismiss Ext.P2 petition.
ii. to issue any other writ, order or
direction, this Honourable Curt would
deem fit to issue in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
iii. to issue the cost of this writ petition.
2. Petitioners are 15th and 17th defendants in O.S.No.85
of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. The above suit has
been instituted by the 1st respondent, a public sector bank for
a declaration that some of the documents executed by
defendants 1 to 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are liable to be treated as
fraudulent transfers as covered under Section 53 of the
WPC.37815/08 2
Transfer of Property Act. Since a declaration under Section
53 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding the fraudulent
transfers covered by the registered documents was sought for,
leave of the court was essential to institute the suit, which was
applied for by the plaintiff. The court, after issuing notice to
the parties and hearing both sides, granted leave by Ext.P5
order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged
by the petitioners, 15th and 17th defendants in the suit
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that no relief is sought
for against the 15th and 17th defendants in the suit, and so
much so, the leave applied for by the plaintiff and granted by
the court is unsustainable as against them under law and
facts. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent bank submits
that in respect of a loan advanced to the 15th defendant
company, the defendants 1 to 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are
guaranteers, and all of them had furnished their property as
WPC.37815/08 3
security for the loan transaction. That being the position,
when suit is instituted, presence of 15th and 17th defendants,
who alone have objected the grant of leave by filing this writ
petition, according to the counsel, is essential and necessary
for a fair and proper disposal of the suit in accordance with
law. After perusing the materials produced with the writ
petition including copy of the plaint, the application for the
leave applied by the 1st respondent bank with reference to
Ext.P5 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order
passed by the court below granting leave to the plaintiff to
institute the suit for the reliefs claimed in the plaint.
Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp